Patna High Court
Ravi Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 5 August, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2532 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Ravi Kumar Singh S/O Awadhesh Kumar Singh R/O Hempur, P.S-
Mohuddin Nagar, Dist- Samastipur, A/P.- Kotak Mahindra Baink,
Infinity IT Park Road, Malad, Raheja Housing @ Commercial
Complex, Malad East Mumbai, Maharastra. At Prsent Address- Flat
No C 110, National Park, Plot No. 452, Takkapanvel, Raigarh, Navi
Mumbai, Mharastra- 410206.
2. Awadhesh Kumar Singh S/O Late Ganga Prasad Singh R/O
Hemanpur, P.S- Mohuddin Nagar, Distt.- Samastipur. At Prsent
Address- Flat No C 110, National Park, Plot No. 452, Takkapanvel,
Raigarh, Navi Mumbai, Mharastra- 410206.
3. Smt. Rekha Singh W/O Awadhesh Kumar Singh R/O Hemanpur, P.S-
Mohuddin Nagar, Distt.- Samastipur. At Prsent Address- Flat No C
110, National Park, Plot No. 452, Takkapanvel, Raigarh, Navi
Mumbai, Mharastra- 410206.
4. Rahul Kumar Singh S/O Awadhesh Kumar Singh R/O Hemanpur, P.S-
Mohuddin Nagar, Distt.- Samastipur. At Prsent Address- Flat No C
110, National Park, Plot No. 452, Takkapanvel, Raigarh, Navi
Mumbai, Maharastra- 410206.
5. Radha Singh W/O Rahul Kumar Singh R/O Hemanpur, P.S- Mohuddin
Nagar, Distt.- Samastipur. At Prsent Address- Flat No C 110, National
Park, Plot No. 452, Takkapanvel, Raigarh, Navi Mumbai, Mharastra-
410206.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Aditi Singh W/O Ravi Kumar Singh, D/O Amrendra Kumar Singh
R/O Hemanpur, P.S- Mohuddin Nagar, Distt.- Samastipur and C-110,
National Park, Takkapanvel, Raigarh, Navi Mumbai, Maharastra-
410206.
Presently a resident of Veena Kunj Opposite Zilla School, Gaya, P.S-
Civil Line, Dist.- Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ansul, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Aditya Pandey, Advocate
Mr.Shyam Kishore, Advocate
Ms.Sakshi Bhatnagar, Advocate
Ms.Eashita Raj, Advocate
Ms.Ginni Priya, Advocate
Mr.Anuj Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
Mr.Rakesh Kr. Samendra, Advocate (Inf.)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
2/20
Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 05-08-2025
Heard Mr. Ansul, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Kr. Samendra,
learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.
2. The present petition preferred under Section 482
Cr.P.C./528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(in short, the 'B.N.S.S.') for quashing the order dated
28.11.2024
passed by Ms. Kriti, learned Judicial Magistrate –
1st Class, Gaya, wherein considering application dated
25.07.2024 filed by the complainant/aggrieved person/O.P.
No. 2, under section 23(2) of the Domestic Violence Act (in
short, the ‘D.V. Act‘) in pending Domestic Violence Case No.
02/2024, learned Magistrate has been pleased to allow
protection qua “shared household” and monetary protection
as sought for.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Ansul, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners that aforesaid Domestic Violence
Case No. 02/2024 was filed before the court of learned CJM,
Gaya, seeking different protections as available under section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
3/20
18, 19, 20 and 23 of the D.V. Act on the basis of forged and
fabricated documents concealing the income and status of
“shared household” from the court below.
4. It is submitted that impugned interim order under
section 23(2) of the D.V. Act, for grant of ad-interim
protection was passed without being given an opportunity to
file reply of petition dated 25.07.2024.
5. Mr. Ansul, while arguing further, submitted that the
learned trial court failed to appreciate that the house situated
at C110, National Park, Plot No. 452, Takka Panvel, Raigarh,
Navi Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin-410206, is a self-acquired
property of petitioner no. 2 namely, Awadhesh Kumar Singh,
who is the father of petitioner no. 1 namely, Ravi Kumar
Singh (husband of O.P. No.2), and same was never used as
shared house hold by O.P. No. 2 namely, Aditi Singh.
6. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel
that present petition was filed only to grab the share in
property/paternal property of petitioner no. 1/husband. It is
pointed out that as O.P. No. 2/Aditi Singh never resided in the
aforesaid Flat situated at Navi Mumbai, therefore, same
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
4/20
cannot be termed as ‘shared house hold’. It is submitted that
at the time of marriage, the husband/petitioner no. 1 of O.P.
No. 2 was living in a rented premises and they never lived in
parental house of petitioner no. 1.
7. It is submitted that the husband/Ravi Kumar Singh
is paying Rs. 25,000/- to O.P. No.2 as an ad-interim
maintenance in compliance of the order dated 02.08.2024
passed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 1011/2024, while he approached this
Court for quashing of FIR lodged for the offence alleged to be
committed under Section 498A of the IPC.
8. It is submitted that beside the aforesaid further
monetary protection of Rs. 15,000/- was passed against
petitioner no. 1 by completely ignoring the income of O.P.
No.2 namely, Aditi Singh, who herself is highly educated lady
(law graduate) and working with multinational companies like,
M/s Kotak Mahindra and M/s Aditya Birla Finance Company
and drawing more than Rs. One Lakh monthly salary.
9. It is submitted by Mr. Ansul, that marriage took
place on 16.02.2022, whereafter O.P. No. 2 came to her
matrimonial village on 17.02.2022, at village Hemantpur,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
5/20
District – Samastipur (Bihar).
10. Learned senior counsel in support of ‘shared
household’ relied upon the Leave and License Agreement
executed on 12.04.2023 between one Bharat Kunvarji Maru
and petitioner no. 1 namely, Ravi Kumar Singh, which was
valid from period 10.04.2023 to 09.03.2024. It was further
extended from 01.03.2024 to 31.03.2025 through
Annexure ‘4/2’, therefore, shared house hold was a rented
premises where O.P. No2. was living with her
husband/petitioner no. 1 namely, Ravi Kumar Singh, and not
at C110, National Park, Plot No. 452, Takka Panvel, Raigarh,
Navi Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin-410206.
11. In this context, Mr. Ansul further submitted that
parties were living together in the rented premises for the
reason that their work place was near to their rented
premises, and, therefore, they lived together almost for two
years in rented premises having decree of permanence. It is
pointed out that casual visit at parental home cannot be a
determinating factor for ‘shared house hold’. Any claim qua
parental property is only to disturb the family further or with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
6/20
oblique motive to grab the property. In view of the aforesaid,
it is submitted that prima facie finding qua ‘shared house hold’
qua C110, National Park, Plot No. 452, Takka Panvel,
Raigarh, Navi Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin-410206 is apparently
bad in the eyes of law as it was not shared at any particular
time. However, he conceded that O.P. No. 2 is entitled for
alternate accommodation being an aggrieved woman at par
status with petitioner no. 1, what she enjoyed in her “share
household” which is a rented house as discussed above in
view of section 19(1)(f) of the D.V. Act.
12. It is further submitted that petitioners family is of
both, non-agrarian and agrarian habitats and same is the case
with the O.P. No. 2, therefore, the details on affidavit must be
filed by the O.P. No. 2 as per enclosure 1 and 2, discussed in
Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Ors. [(2021) 2 SCC 324]; before
passing any interim protection in view of section 23(2) of the
D.V. Act and any non-compliance of the direction of Hon’ble
Supreme Court makes the impugned order invalid under law,
and, therefore, fit to be set-aside/quashed.
13. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Samrendra, learned counsel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
7/20
appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 namely, Aditi
Singh, submitted that the residence bunglow at Hemantpur,
P.S. – Mohuddin Nagar, District – Samstipur, Bihar and Flat
No. C110, National Park, Plot No. 452, Takka Panvel,
Raigarh, Navi Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin-410206 are “shared
matrimonial house” of the petitioner. It is submitted that O.P.
No.2 was subjected to physical, verbal and emotional abuses
coupled with the economic abuses at the hands of the
petitioners and considering all such aspects interim order was
passed by the learned trial court.
14. It is also pointed out that the court below further
granted monetary benefit to O.P. No. 2 considering the salary
slip of the husband which is also recorded in order dated
28.11.2024 passed by the learned trial court and further
considering the aspect that O.P. No. 2 is also getting Rs.
25,000/- per month in terms of order dated 02.08.2024 as
passed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 1011/2024. Considering all such
aspects, further Rs. 15,000/- in addition to Rs. 25,000/- was
ordered to pay O.P. No. 2 by petitioner no. 1.
15. It is also submitted that in the light of the order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
8/20
passed by the court below, the Protection Officer and S.H.O.
Panvel, Maharashtra, placed a report in the compliance of the
residence order dated 28.11.2024, wherein it was stated by
senior police inspector, Takka Panvel, Navi Mumbai,
Maharastra, that complainant approached on 9th December,
2024, from Bihar and proceeded to her matrimonial home at
Flat No. C110, National Park, Plot No. 452, Takka Panvel,
Raigarh, Navi Mumbai, Maharastra. Upon arriving they found
that the said flat was locked and after inquiring from
neighbours and the security guard, it was said that Awadhesh
Kumar Singh (petitioner no. 2) and his family, who resided in
aforesaid flat had not been seen from the last two to three
days. Whereafter, the police contacted the husband of O.P.
No. 2 namely, Ravi Kumar Singh (petitioner no. 1), who
informed that he is not currently living in Panvel house and his
parents had gone to village Hasanpur, district – Samastipur
(Bihar).
16. It is submitted that after marriage, both the
parties celebrated a reception party in flat No. C110, National
Park, Plot No. 452, Takka Panvel, Raigarh, Navi Mumbai,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
9/20
Maharastra and O.P. No. 2 on all festivals like Chhat Puja,
Holi, Diwali, Teez etc. and on occasion of other family events
came there with petitioner no. 1 and, therefore, it can be said
safely that aforesaid flat was a shared household.
17. It would be apposite to reproduce para 128,
129, 130, 131 & 132 of Rajnesh case (supra), for
better understanding of the case, which are as under:
(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction:
128. To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and
avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings,
it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so
that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family
Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the
country. We direct that:
128.1. (i) Where successive claims for maintenance are made
by a party under different statutes, the court would consider an
adjustment or set-off, of the amount awarded in the previous
proceeding(s), while determining whether any further amount
is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding.
128.2. (ii) It is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose
the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the
subsequent proceeding.
128.3. (iii) If the order passed in the previous proceeding(s)
requires any modification or variation, it would be required to
be done in the same proceeding.
b) Payment of Interim Maintenance
129. The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities
annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may
be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance
proceedings, including pending proceedings before the Family
Court/District Court/Magistrates Court concerned, as the case
may be, throughout the country.
(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of
maintenance
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
10/20
130. For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to
an applicant, the court shall take into account the criteria
enumerated in Part B — III of the judgment. The aforesaid
factors are however not exhaustive, and the court concerned
may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor(s)
which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and
circumstances of a case.
(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded
131. We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be
awarded from the date of filing the application for
maintenance, as held in Part B — IV above.
(e) Enforcement/Execution of orders of maintenance
132. For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it
is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be
enforced under Section 28-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955;
Section 20(6) of the DV Act; and Section 128 of CrPC, as may
be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced as a
money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC,
more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order 21.
18. It would be further apposite to reproduce section
2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, where definition of
shared household is available, which reads as under:
“2(s) “shared household” means a household
where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage
has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or
along with the respondent and includes such a
house hold whether owned or tenanted either
jointly by the aggrieved person and the
respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of
them in respect of which either the aggrieved
person or the respondent or both jointly or singly
have any right, title, interest or equity and includes
such a household which may belong to the joint
family of which the respondent is a member,
irrespective of whether the respondent or the
aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in
the shared household;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
11/20
19. It would be further apposite to reproduce section
19(1)(f) of the D.V. Act, 2005, as it same appears relevant in
present context of dispute as to understand the position of
law, which is as under:
“19(1)(f). Directing the respondent to secure same level
of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as
enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for
the same, if the circumstances so require:
Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed
against any person who is a woman.”
20. In the aforesaid context, it would further be
apposite to reproduce para 88 of Rajnesh case (supra),
which are as under:
“88. The right of a woman to reside in a “shared household”
defined under Section 2(s) entitles the aggrieved woman for
right of residence in the shared household, irrespective of
her having any legal interest in the same. This Court in
Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja [Satish
Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414, by
a Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash
Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ.] held that “shared household”
referred to in Section 2(s) is the shared household of the
aggrieved person where she was living at the time when the
application was filed, or at any stage lived in a domestic
relationship. The living of the aggrieved woman in the
shared household must have a degree of permanence. A
mere fleeting or casual living at different places would not
constitute a “shared household”. It is important to consider
the intention of the parties, nature of living, and nature of
the household, to determine whether the premises is a
“shared household”. Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and
19 of the DV Act entitles a woman to the right of residence
in a shared household, irrespective of her having any legal
interest in the same. There is no requirement of law that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
12/20husband should be a member of the joint family, or that the
household must belong to the joint family, in which he or the
aggrieved woman has any right, title or interest. The shared
household may not necessarily be owned or tenanted by the
husband singly or jointly.”
21. The important consideration as to arrive at
conclusion qua ‘shared household’ is the intention of the
parties, nature of living and nature of the house hold, to
determine whether the premises is a ‘shared household’.
There is no requirement of law that the husband should be a
member of the joint family, or that the household must belong
to the joint family, in which he or the aggrieved woman has
any right, title or interest. The shared household may not
necessarily be owned or rented by the husband alone or
jointly.
22. It would be apposite to reproduce the impugned
order dated 28.11.2024, to understand the consideration by
the learned trial court before passing residential and
monetary protection to opposite party no. 2, which reads as
under:
“IN THE COURT OF MS. Kriti, JMFC, GAYA
Domestic Violence Case No. 02/2024
In the matter of
Aditi Singh ….. Complainant
Versus
Ravi Singh & Ors. ….. Opposite Parties
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
13/2028.11.2024. Attendance has been filed only on behalf
of the Petitioner and Representation has been filed on
behalf of all the Respondents. Record is put up for passing
an order on petition dated 25.07.2024 under section 23(2)
of the Domestic Violence Act,2005.
Case called out. Petitioner and the opposite party
through the Ld. Counsel appeared on their behalf. Heard
both the parties. Perused the case record.
Perused the entire case record including the Domestic
Incident Report dated 24.08.2024 as submitted by the
Protection Officer. The petitioner by an application dated
25.07.2024 has prayed for the protection order u/s 18,
residence order under section 19 and monetary relief u/s
20 r/w section 23 of the of the Domestic Violence Act,
2005. The Respondents have been given several directions
to appear physically, however none of the Respondents
appeared physically.
The petitioner in it’s application dated 25/07/2024 has
stated that the present case has been brought up by her
against her husband and others seeking the relief of
residence, monetary compensation and protection order.
She further stated that the respondents have committed
various acts of Domestic Violence on the complainant. The
petitioner has been subject to intense cruelty and has
undergone physical, mental, emotional, verbal, sexual and
economic harassment and abuse at the hand of the
respondents during the domestic relationship. Respondent.
I has frequently resorted to physical violence causing bodily
harm and instilling fear in the complainant. They have used
extreme abusive and degrading language. The consistent
use of threat, intimidation and derogatory remarks had led
to severe mental anguish for the complainant. To establish
her facts the complainant has submitted before the court
several documentary proofs including the whatsapp chats,
her Resignation letter at Kotak Mahindra, Mumbai due to
the matrimonial issues, copy of FIR filed before Civil Lines,
Gaya and the complaint filed at Samatanagar Police station,
Mumbai.
Heard. Perused the entire case record. The present
petition has been filed under section 23(2) f the D.V. Act
seeking residence order, protection order and monetary
order of Rs. 1,000,00/- per month, Disclosure of assets and
liabilities on affidavit has been made by the complainant on
affidavit.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
14/20The complainant in her affidavit has stated the fact that
the monthly income drawn by the respondent no. I is over
and above 1,75,000/- per month and none of the other
respondents are dependent upon him. Copy of the salary
slip of the respondent no. I is also submitted before this
court. The petitioner further submitted that the respondents
are having multiple immovable properties such as house,
flat, and land at different locations which are-1) C110,
National Park, Plot No. 452, Takka Panvel, Raigarh, Navi
Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin-410206, 2) Flat at Sai Society,
Near Panvel Railway Station, Raigarh Navi Mumbai, Navi
Mumbai, Maharastra-410206, 3) Bunglow at Hemanpur,
P.S. Mohuddin Nagar, Samastipur Bihar, and several acre
of agricultural land at Hemantpur, smastipur, Bihar and
land situated at beach village Baada at Kumta Hobali,
Karnataka. Therefore, as such the petitioner is entitled for
monetary relief and shared household at well-furnished flat
with all modern amenities to be handed over to her
considering the considerable distance of the matrimonial
home from complainant’s workplace by way of an ad-
interim residential relief.
Also, petitioner’s case is supported by a Domestic
Incident Report wherein it has been stated that the
petitioner’s marriage was solemnized with Mr. Ravi Kumar
Singh on 16/02/2022 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies
wherein all the demands of lavish wedding arrangements
were fulfilled, however not being happy the dowry and gifts
the opposite party started mentally and physically harassing
the petitioner from the very beginning of the marriage. The
respondent no.1 in collusion with other respondents took
her to the doctor for the abortion and caused her
miscarriage. On 21/11/2023, all the respondents assaulted
her at the midnight and asked her to leave home whereafter
she was admitted at DY Patil Hospital. That on 24/12/2023
the opposite party reached Gaya and demanded dowry of
Rs. 20 Lakhs. On 02/02/2024 the opposite party has seized
all the petitioner’s jewellery, degree and certificates from
her locker.
Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and the
respondent, Since no rejoinder has been filed by the Ld.
Counsel of the respondent on the petition u/s 23(2) of the
D.V Act, the Ld. Counsel of the Respondent was heard on
the oral submission. Perused the record in the light of the
arguments and the documents submitted by the petitioner
in the support of the petition dated 25/07/2024 along with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
15/20the Domestic Incident Report. In the instant case, on
careful perusal of the case record it transpires that the
residence Bunglow at Hemanpur, P.S- Mohuddin Nagar,
Samastipur, Bihar, and residence at C110, National Park,
Plot No. 452, Takka Panvel, Raigarh, Navi Mumbai,
Maharastra, Pin- 410206 is the shared matrimonial
household of the petitioner and the respondents. However,
no proof of the ownership and possession over the said
property by opposite party has been adduced before the
court by the petitioner. But the petitioner by way of an
affidavit has deposed that the aforesaid mentioned house is
her matrimonial house and the same has been mentioned in
the Domestic Incident Report submitted by the Protection
Officer.
As per section 2 (a) of the D.V. Act, an “aggrieved
person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a
domestic relationship with the respondent and who
alleges to have been subjected to any act of
domestic violence by the respondent. Further, as per
section 2 (f) of the D.V. Act, “domestic relationship”
means a relationship between two persons who live
or have, at any point of time, lived together in a
shared household, when they are related by
consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in
the nature of marriage, adoption or are family
members living together as a joint family.
It has been admitted by the petitioner and as per the
DIR Report that the petitioner herein, namely Aditi Singh is
a legally wedded wife of Respondent no. 1 Ravi Kumar
Singh who got married and Respondent no. 1, lived in a
shared household, is not a disputed fact. Hence, petitioner
and Respondent no.1 had a domestic relationship. The
petitioner has alleged to have been subjected to physical,
verbal, emotional and economic abuses by the O.Ps., which
are an act of domestic violence. Thus petitioner, Aditi
Singh is an aggrieved woman, and is entitled to
monetary relief and Residential Relief, under section
19 and 20 of the D.V. Act, even at this stage, as an
interim relief.
The relief prayed by the petitioner as per the application
dated 24.07.2024 is for accommodation and residence
order under section 19 and monetary relief u/s 20 of the
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner by way of an
affidavit dated: 14.11.2024 has stated deposed that the
opposite party are residing at her matrimonial house
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
16/20
located at the residence at C110, National Park, Plot No.
452, Takka Panvel, Raigarh, Navi Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin-
410206. In this regard Respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 are
directed to provide a residence to the petitioner in
the house located at C110, National Park, Plot No.
452, Takka Panvel, Raigarh, Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra, Pin-410206 which is her matrimonial
house as an ad-interim relief. They are further restrained
from disturbing the possession of the petitioner in the said
house.
Further the opposite parties are restrained from
alienating or disposing off or encumbering the house
in question, i.e. C110, National Plot No. 452, Takka
Panvel, Raigarh, Navi Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin-
410206. Hence, with the above observation the petition
dated 25.07.2024 of the petitioner stand allowed on the
above-mentioned points. Office Clerk is directed to send
a copy of this order to the Protection Officer as well
as to the concerned Police Station for the
information. Local Police Station is further directed to
facilitate the deponent to avail the relief granted vide this
order.
Secondly, Regarding the relief sought u/s 20 of
the D.V act for the Monetary relief, it has submitted
under an affidavit by the complainant that the monthly
income drawn by the respondent no. 1 is over and above
1,75.000/- per month, and none of the other respondents
are dependent upon him and salary slip is also presented
before the court. It has been submitted by the Ld Counsel
of the Respondents that the complainant through cri. Writ
Jurisdiction case no. 1011/2024 is receiving Rs. 25,000/-as
interim-maintenance from th Respondents. It had
submitted by the complainant that the above said interim
maintenance is granted by the Respondent 2 to 5.
Considering the factum of the case on the point of Monetary
Relief, the complainant is entitled to interim maintenance
which shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent
with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is
accustomed subject to the final outcome of the case. As
such, the respondent no. 1 herein namely Ravi
Kumar Singh is directed to pay petitioner Aditi
Singh, Rs. 15,000/- per month by the tenth day of
every month, as interim maintenance, towards
maintenance of his wife. This interim maintenance cost
shall be subject to final outcome of the case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
17/20
It is further directed that the said amount shall be
deposited in the bank account of the petitioner. Petitioner
Aditi Singh and his learned counsel are directed to provide
the bank details of petitioner Aditi Singh on an affidavit
before the next fixed date.
O/C is directed to send a copy of this order to
S.H.O. of the concerned police station for
facilitating the compliance of this order.
Sd/-
JMFC
Gaya.”
23. Having all such legal position in hand and by
importing the same to the present factual scenario, it
transpires that the marriage between the parties took place at
Bodh Gaya, Bihar on 16.02.2022, whereafter O.P. No. 2 left
for Samastipur, the parental village of petitioner no.
1/husband namely, Ravi Kumar Singh. After living for a
couple of days there and performing post marriage rituals,
she came to Mumbai. Admittedly, the O.P. No. 2 is a highly
educated girl (law graduate) and was working with M/s Kotak
Mahindra and M/s Aditya Birla Finance Co. Ltd. Annexure
‘4/1’ and Annexure ‘4/2’, which are Leave and License
Agreement for flat, C.T.S. Number 163A, 17 th Floor, Godrej
Tranquil, Akurli Road, Near Ayappa Temple, Kandivali East,
Mumbai – 400101, from the period 10.04.2023 to
09.03.2024, extended till March 2025 suggesting that it was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
18/20
taken on rent by petitioner no. 1 where O.P. No. 2 was also
resided, finding convenient to their work place, they lived
together in aforesaid rented flat for a substantial period of
their post marriage life before dispute. Even the O.P. No. 2 in
her resignation letter mentioned her address as Kandivali
Mumbai, sending her email to M/s Kotak Mahindra sharing
reason thereof her matrimonial issues on 28.11.2023 (5:27
P.M.) (Annexure ‘7’). Besides aforesaid, several online
transactions and the deliveries were made at the aforesaid
address including household items, which is the part of
Annexure ‘6’ series, suggesting the intention of the parties,
nature of living and the nature of household that the aforesaid
tenant premises at Kandivali Mumbai was the shared house
hold in view of Rajnesh case (supra).
24. Interestingly, opposite party no. 2 claimed
through her complaint that Flat No. C110, National Park, Plot
No. 452, Takka Panvel, Raigarh, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra,
Pin-410206 and residence at Samastipur are the shared
household, which prima facie suggest the intention of O.P.
No. 2 that the claim was raised to grab the share in paternal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
19/20
property of petitioner no. 1 by defeating the object of Section
2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act.
25. Legal definition of ‘shared household’ is
available under section 2(s) of D.V. Act, 2005 and, therefore,
it cannot be confused with ‘share in property’ of
matrimonial house of O.P. No. 2.
26. Admittedly, O.P. No. 2 never filed enclosure 1 & 2
in terms of paragraph 129 of Rajnesh case (supra), for
determination of interim maintenance and same also appears
from the impugned order, as discussed aforesaid.
27. Hence, considering the aforesaid, the impugned
order dated 28.11.2024 passed in Domestic Violence Case
No. 02 of 2024, finding Flat No. C110, National Park, Plot No.
452, Takka Panvel, Raigarh, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, Pin-
410206, as “shared household” is hereby quashed/set
aside. Further facts of this case suggest that house taken on
rent under leave and license agreement at 163A, 17 th Floor,
Godrej Tranquil, Akurli Road, Near Ayappa Temple, Kandivali
East, Mumbai – 400101 is the “shared household”. If the
aforesaid rented house is still on rent, petitioner no. 1 is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2532 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
20/20
directed to provide O.P. No. 2 to reside in one bedroom
thereof with all basic facilities, without any disturbance.
Or,
In alternate, to provide a rented flat of One BHK, at
Kandivali East, Mumbai, for O.P. No. 2, immediately within 15
days of her request, upon proof of her working from office.
28. As far monetary protection of further amount of
Rs. 15,000/- is concerned, learned trial court is directed to
pass a fresh order considering Enclosure I & II filled by O.P.
No. 2 by taking a guiding note of Rajnesh case (supra).
29. This application allowed in aforesaid terms.
30. At this stage, it is made clear that payment of ad-
interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month as passed by
one of the learned coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.W.J.C.
No. 1011/2024, as discussed aforesaid, shall remain
continued subject to any further order as passed thereof.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 09.07.2025 Uploading Date 05.08.2025 Transmission Date 05.08.2025